Theory and Decision

, Volume 36, Issue 1, pp 1–44 | Cite as

Separating marginal utility and probabilistic risk aversion

  • Peter Wakker
Article

Abstract

This paper is motivated by the search for one cardinal utility for decisions under risk, welfare evaluations, and other contexts. This cardinal utility should have meaningprior to risk, with risk depending on cardinal utility, not the other way around. The rank-dependent utility model can reconcile such a view on utility with the position that risk attitude consists of more than marginal utility, by providing a separate risk component: a ‘probabilistic risk attitude’ towards probability mixtures of lotteries, modeled through a transformation for cumulative probabilities. While this separation of risk attitude into two independent components is the characteristic feature of rank-dependent utility, it had not yet been axiomatized. Doing that is the purpose of this paper. Therefore, in the second part, the paper extends Yaari's axiomatization to nonlinear utility, and provides separate axiomatizations for increasing/decreasing marginal utility and for optimistic/pessimistic probability transformations. This is generalized to interpersonal comparability. It is also shown that two elementary and often-discussed properties — quasi-convexity (‘aversion’) of preferences with respect to probability mixtures, and convexity (‘pessimism’) of the probability transformation — are equivalent.

Keywords

Rank-dependent utility risk aversion diminishing marginal utility strength of preference orderings of tradeoffs 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allais, M.: 1953, ‘Fondements d'une Théorie Positive des Choix Comportant un Risque et Critique des Postulats et Axiomes de l'Ecole Américaine’,Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique 40, Econométrie, 257–332. Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. Translated into English, with additions, as ‘The Foundations of a Positive Theory of Choice Involving Risk and a Criticism of the Postulates and Axioms of the American School’,in Allais, M. and Hagen, O. (Eds.): 1979,Expected Utility Hypotheses and the Allais Paradox, Reidel, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 27–145.Google Scholar
  2. Allais, M.: 1979, ‘The So-Called Allais Paradox and Rational Decisions under Uncertainty’,In Allais, M. and Hagen, O. (Eds.): 1979,Expected Utility Hypotheses and the Allais Paradox, Reidel, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 437–681.Google Scholar
  3. Arrow, K.J.: 1951, ‘Alternative Approaches to the Theory of Choice in Risk-Taking Situations’,Econometrica 19, 404–437.Google Scholar
  4. Barron, F.H., von Winterfeldt, D. and Fischer, G.W.: 1984, ‘Empirical and Theoretical Relationships between Value and Utility Functions’,Acta Psychologica 56, 233–244.Google Scholar
  5. Bernard, G.: 1974, ‘On Utility Functions’,Theory and Decision 5, 205–242.Google Scholar
  6. Bernoulli, D.: 1738, ‘Specimen Theoria Novae de Mensura Sortis’,Commentarii Academiae Scientiarum Imperialis Petropolitanae 5, 175–192. Translated into English by Sommer, L.: 1954, ‘Exposition of a New Theory on the Measurement of Risk’,Econometrica 12, 23–36; or in Page, A.N. (Ed.): 1968,Utility Theory: A Book of Readings, Wiley, New York, Ch. 11.Google Scholar
  7. Birnbaum, M.H. and Sutton, S.E.: 1992, ‘Scale Convergence and Utility Measurement’,Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 52, 183–215.Google Scholar
  8. Camerer, C.F.: 1989, ‘An Experimental Test of Several Generalized Utility Theories’,Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 2, 61–104.Google Scholar
  9. Chateauneuf, A.: 1988, ‘Uncertainty Aversion and Risk Aversion in Models with Nonadditive Probabilities’,In Munier, B.R. (Ed.): 1988,Risk, Decision and Rationality, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 615–629.Google Scholar
  10. Chateauneuf, A.: 1990, ‘On the Use of Comonotonicity in the Axiomatization of EURDP Theory for Arbitrary Consequences’, CERMSEM, University of Paris I; Abstract presented at Fifth International Conference on the Foundations and Applications of Utility, Risk and Decision Theory (FUR-90).Google Scholar
  11. Chateauneuf, A. and Cohen, M.: 1990, ‘Risk Seeking with Diminishing Marginal Utility in a Non-Expected Utility Model’, CERMSEM, University of Paris I.Google Scholar
  12. Chew, S.H.: 1989, ‘An Axiomatic Generalization of the Quasilinear Mean and Gini Mean with Application to Decision Theory’, Department of Economics, University of California, Irvine, USA.Google Scholar
  13. Chew, S.H. and Epstein, L.G.: 1989, ‘A Unifying Approach to Axiomatic Non-Expected Utility Theories’,Journal of Economic Theory 49, 207–240.Google Scholar
  14. Chew, S.H., Epstein, L.G. and Wakker, P.P.: 1993, ‘A Unifying Approach to Axiomatic Non-Expected Utility Theories: Corrigenda’,Journal of Economic Theory 59, 183–188.Google Scholar
  15. Chew, S.H. and Karni, E.: 1991, ‘Choquet Expected Utility with a Finite State Space’,Journal of Economic Theory, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  16. Chew, S.H., Karni, E. and Safra, Z.: 1987, ‘Risk Aversion in the Theory of Expected Utility with Rank Dependent Probabilities’,Journal of Economic Theory 42, 370–381.Google Scholar
  17. Chew, S.H. and Wakker, P.P.: 1991, ‘Generalizing Choquet Expected Utility by Weakening Savage's Sure-Thing Principle’, University of California, Irvine Research Unit in Mathematical Behavioral Sciences, MBS 91-16, Irvine, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  18. Cohen, M. and Jaffray, J.Y.: 1988, ‘Preponderence of the Certainty Effect over Probability Distortion in Decision Making under Risk’,In Munier, B.R. (Ed.): 1988,Risk, Decision and Rationality, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 173–187.Google Scholar
  19. Cramer, G.: 1728, Letter from Cramer to Nicholas Bernoulli. Translated into English by Louise Sommer in Bernoulli, Daniel (1954), ‘Exposition of a New Theory on the Measurement of Risk’,Econometrica 22, 23–36.Google Scholar
  20. Crouzeix, J.-P. and Lindberg, P.O.: 1986, ‘Additively Decomposed Quasiconvex Functions’,Mathematical Programming 35, 42–57.Google Scholar
  21. Debreu, G. and Koopmans, T.C.: 1982, ‘Additively Decomposed Quasiconvex Functions’,Mathematical Programming 24, 1–38.Google Scholar
  22. Dyer, J.S. and Sarin, R.K.: 1982, ‘Relative Risk Aversion’,Management Science 28, 875–886.Google Scholar
  23. Edwards, W.: 1962, ‘Subjective Probabilities Inferred from Decisions’,Psychological Review 69, 109–135.Google Scholar
  24. Farquhar, P. and Keller, R.L.: 1989, ‘Preference Intensity Measurement’,Annals of Operations Research 19, 205–217.Google Scholar
  25. Fishburn, P.C.: 1978, ‘On Handa's ‘New Theory of Cardinal Utility’ and the Maximization of Expected Return’,Journal of Political Economy 86, 321–324.Google Scholar
  26. Fishburn, P.C.: 1989, ‘Retrospective on the Utility Theory of von Neumann and Morgenstern’,Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 2, 127–158.Google Scholar
  27. Fisher, I.: 1927, ‘A Statistical Method for Measuring “Marginal Utility” and Testing the Justice of a Progressive Income Tax’,In Hollander, J.H. (Ed.): 1927Economic Essays Contributed in Honor of John Bates Clark, Macmillan, New York, pp. 157–193.Google Scholar
  28. Friedman, M. and Savage, L.J.: 1948, ‘The Utility Analysis of Choices Involving Risk’,Journal of Political Economy 56, 279–304.Google Scholar
  29. Gilboa, I. and Schmeidler, D.: 1989, ‘Maxmin Expected Utility with a Non-Unique Prior’,Journal of Mathematical Economics 18, 141–153.Google Scholar
  30. Green, J. and Jullien, B.: 1988, ‘Ordinal Independence in Non-Linear Utility Theory’,Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1, 355–387; (‘Erratum’,2 (1989), 119.)Google Scholar
  31. Gul, F.: 1992, ‘Savage's Theorem with a Finite Number of States’,Journal of Economic Theory 57, 99–110.Google Scholar
  32. Handa, J.: 1977, ‘Risk, Probabilities, and a New Theory of Cardinal Utility’,Journal of Political Economy 85, 97–122.Google Scholar
  33. Hardy, G.H., Littlewood, J.E. and Pólya, G.: 1934,Inequalities, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (second edition 1952, reprinted 1978).Google Scholar
  34. Harsanyi, J.C.: 1955, ‘Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics, and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility’,Journal of Political Economy 63, 309–321.Google Scholar
  35. Hilton, R.W.: 1988, ‘Risk Attitude under Two Alternative Theories of Choice under Risk’,Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization 9, 119–136.Google Scholar
  36. Jaffray, J.Y.: 1989, ‘Linear Utility Theory for Belief Functions’,Operations Research Letters 8, 107–112.Google Scholar
  37. Jevons, W.S.: 1911,The Theory of Political Economy, MacMillan, London.Google Scholar
  38. Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A.: 1979, ‘Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk’,Econometrica 47, 263–291.Google Scholar
  39. Krantz, D.H., Luce, R.D., Suppes, P., and Tversky, A.: 1971,Foundations of Measurement, Vol. I.: Additive and Polynomial Representations, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  40. Krelle, W.: 1968,Präferenz- und Entscheidungstheorie, Mohr, Tübingen.Google Scholar
  41. Krzysztofowicz, R.: 1983, ‘Strength of Preferences and Risk Attitude in Utility Measurement’,Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance 31, 88–113.Google Scholar
  42. Krzysztofowicz, R. and Koch, J.B.: 1989, ‘Estimation of Cardinal Utility Based on a Nonlinear Theory’,Annals of Operations Research 19, 181–204.Google Scholar
  43. Lopes, L.L.: 1987, ‘Between Hope and Fear: The Psychology of Risk’,Advances in Experimental Psychology 20, 255–295.Google Scholar
  44. Luce, R.D.: 1988, ‘Rank-Dependent, Subjective Expected-Utility Representations’,Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1, 305–332.Google Scholar
  45. Luce, R.D. and Fishburn, P.C.: 1991, ‘Rank- and Sign-Dependent Linear Utility Models for Finite First-Order Gambles’,Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 4, 29–59.Google Scholar
  46. Luce, R.D. and Raiffa, H.: 1957,Games and Decisions, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  47. McCord, M.R. and de Neufville, R.: 1983, ‘Fundamental Deficiency of Expected Utility Decision Analysis’,In French, S., Hartley, R., Thomas, L.C., and White, D.J. (Eds.): 1983,Multi-Objective Decision Making, Academic Press, New York, pp. 279–305.Google Scholar
  48. Marshall, A.: 1948,Principles of Economics, 8th Edition, MacMillan, New York.Google Scholar
  49. Munier B.R. and Abdellaoui, M.: 1991, ‘Expected Utility Violations: An Appropriate and Intercultural Experiment’,In Chikàn, A. (Ed.): 1991,New Developments in Risk and Utility Analysis, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  50. Nakamura, Y.: 1992, ‘Multi-Symmetric Structures and Non-Expected Utility’,Journal of Mathematical Psychology 36, 375–395.Google Scholar
  51. Pfanzagl, J.: 1968,Theory of Measurement, Physica-Verlag, Vienna.Google Scholar
  52. Preston, M.G. and Baratta, P.: 1948, ‘An Experimental Study of the Auction Value of an Uncertain Outcome’,American Journal of Psychology 61, 183–193.Google Scholar
  53. Quiggin, J.: 1982, ‘A Theory of Anticipated Utility’,Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization 3, 323–343.Google Scholar
  54. Quiggin, J. and Wakker, P.P.: 1992, ‘The Axiomatic Basis of Anticipated Utility; A Clarification’, CenTER Discussion paper No. 9203, University of Brabant, Tilburg, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  55. Ramsey, F.P.: 1931, ‘Truth and Probability’.In Ramsey, F.P.: 1931, The Foundations of Mathematics and other Logical Essays, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, pp. 156–198. Reprinted in Kyburg, H.E. and Smokler, H.E. (Eds.): 1964,Studies in Subjective Probability, Wiley, New York, pp. 61–92.Google Scholar
  56. Savage, L.J.: 1954,The Foundations of Statistics, Wiley, New York (second edition 1972, Dover, New York).Google Scholar
  57. Schmeidler, D.: 1989, ‘Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity,Econometrica 57, 571–587.Google Scholar
  58. Segal, U.: 1987, ‘The Ellsberg Paradox and Risk Aversion: An Anticipated Utility Approach’,International Economic Review 28, 175–202.Google Scholar
  59. Segal, U.: 1989, ‘Anticipated Utility: A Measure Representation Approach’,Annals of Operations Research 19, 359–373.Google Scholar
  60. Segal, U.: 1990, ‘Two-Stage Lotteries without the Reduction Axiom’,Econometrica 58, 349–377.Google Scholar
  61. Segal, U.: 1993, ‘The Measure Representation: A Correction’,Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 6, 99–107.Google Scholar
  62. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D.: 1992, ‘Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty’,Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5, 297–323.Google Scholar
  63. von Neumann, J. and Morgenstern, O.: 1944, 1947, 1953,Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  64. von Winterfeldt, D. and Edwards, W.: 1986,Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  65. Wakker, P.P.: 1984, ‘Cardinal Coordinate Independence for Expected Utility’,Journal of Mathematical Psychology 28, 110–117.Google Scholar
  66. Wakker, P.P.: 1986, ‘Representations of Choice Situations’. Ph.D. Disseration, University of Brabant, Department of Economics, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  67. Wakker, P.P.: 1987, ‘Nonadditive Probabilities and Derived Strengths of Preferences’, Internal report 87 MA 03, University of Nijmegen, Department of Mathematical Psychology, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  68. Wakker, P.P.: 1988, ‘The Algebraic Versus the Topological Approach to Additive Representations’,Journal of Mathematical Psychology 32, 421–435.Google Scholar
  69. Wakker, P.P.: 1989a,Additive Representations of Preferences, A New Foundation of Decision Analysis, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  70. Wakker, P.P.: 1989b, ‘Transforming Probabilities without Violating Stochastic Dominance’,In Roskam, E.E.Ch.I. (Ed.): 1989,Mathematical Psychology in Progress, Springer, Berlin, pp. 29–47.Google Scholar
  71. Wakker, P.P.: 1990a, ‘Under Stochastic Dominance Choquet-Expected Utility and Anticipated Utility are Identical’,Theory and Decision 29, 119–132.Google Scholar
  72. Wakker, P.P.: 1990b, ‘Characterizing Optimism and Pessimism Directly through Comonotonicity’,Journal of Economic Theory 52, 453–463.Google Scholar
  73. Wakker, P.P.: 1991a, ‘Additive Representations on Rank-Ordered Sets. I. The Algebraic Approach’,Journal of Mathematical Psychology 35, 501–531.Google Scholar
  74. Wakker, P.P.: 1991b, ‘Additive Representations of Preferences, A New Foundation of Decision Analysis; The Algebraic Approach’,In Doignon, J.P. and Falmagne, J.C. (Eds.): 1991,Mathematical Psychology: Current Developments, Springer, Berlin, pp. 71–87.Google Scholar
  75. Wakker, P.P.: 1993a, ‘Additive Representations on Rank-Ordered Sets. II. The Topological Approach’,Journal of Mathematical Economics 22, 1–26.Google Scholar
  76. Wakker, P.P.: 1993b, ‘Counterexamples to Segal's Measure Representation Theorem’,Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 6, 91–98.Google Scholar
  77. Wakker, P.P.: 1993c, ‘Unbounded Utility for Savage's ‘Foundations of Statistics’, and other Models’,Mathematics of Operations Research 18, 446–485.Google Scholar
  78. Wakker, P.P.: 1993d, ‘Savage's Axioms Usually Imply Violation of Strict Stochastic Dominance’,The Review of Economic Studies 60, 487–493.Google Scholar
  79. Wakker, P.P. and Tversky, A.: 1991, ‘An Axiomatization of Cumulative Prospect Theory’,Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  80. Yaari, M.E.: 1977, ‘A Note on Separability and Quasi-Concavity’,Econometrica 45, 1183–1186.Google Scholar
  81. Yaari, M.E.: 1987a, ‘The Dual Theory of Choice under Risk’,Econometrica 55, 95–115.Google Scholar
  82. Yaari, M.E.: 1987b, ‘Univariate and Multivatiate Comparisons of Risk Aversion: a New Approach’,In Heller, W.P., Starr, R.M. and Starrett, D.A. (Eds.): 1987,Uncertainty, Information and Communication: Essays in Honor of Kenneth J. Arrow, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Vol. III, pp. 173–187.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Wakker

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations